Voiceless: why millions of Americans won’t be able to vote on November 8

by David Kavanagh

Following months of incessant campaigning by this year’s presidential candidates, registered American voters will make their way to the ballot box this Tuesday to finally decide who will replace outgoing president Barack Obama from next year on.

With the race to the White House close and controversial, supporters from both sides of the partisan divide have been urging people to vote since early voting stations started opening their doors last month.

In America, voting is not compulsory.

Previous election years have seen particularly poor voter turnout as a result. In 2012, the numbers stood at under 55% of the eligible population, or around 4% less than in 2008.

Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton addresses a rally at Ohio State University. Columbus, Ohio. 2016. Source: Timothy A. Clary/ AFP/ Getty

But these statistics can be misleading. While political apathy or general laziness can be in part to blame for the lack, the truth is that millions of Americans cannot register to vote to begin with.

“If instead of looking at Americans over 18 that vote you consider the share of registered voters who show up on election day, the US jumps from 30th place among 34 developed countries [in voter turnout ranking] to sixth,” writes The Guardian’s Mona Chalabi.

“There is a simple reason for this: a lot of adults in the US simply cannot register to vote. And their absence will affect this presidential election.”

Criminal disenfranchisement
An estimated 6.1 million adults have had their right to vote taken away due to criminal convictions as of this year, a figure that has risen drastically since the mid 1970s.

In the US, convicted individuals can continue to suffer ‘collateral consequences’ after they have completed their original sentences, resulting in some people never having their right to vote fully restored, among other legal restrictions.

In a number of states, such as Florida, Iowa and Kentucky, this ban is complete and permanent, and results in what opponents often refer to as a form of ‘civil death’ that makes it difficult for ex-offenders to reintegrate into society after serving their terms.

A disproportionate amount of people affected by this system of punishment also belong to minority groups, with one in three adults with criminal convictions being African American.

Restrictive voting laws
In June 2013, the Supreme Court found Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 unconstitutional and struck it down, effectively weakening the entire Act.

Since then, 14 states have introduced new voting restrictions and strict voter identification laws that both make it harder to register to vote and limit early voting.

Again, in some cases this has been found to hit minority communities unfairly, with some states, like North Carolina, implementing restrictions that were found to specifically suppress the vote of African Americans

NAACP members protest as North Carolina legislators debate a ‘discriminatory’ voter ID law. April 2013. Source: Gerry Broome/Associated Press

Unauthorised migrants
According to Human Rights Watch’s Antonio Ginatta, over 20 million unauthorised migrants have lived in the US for at least 20 years.

In that time, they have been provided with no avenues by which to legalise their status and register to vote.

A further 728,000 who came to America as children have lived there for five or more years and are therefore eligible to legally remain and work in the country under a program implemented by the Obama administration.

Despite this, they still cannot become citizens or access the right to vote that comes with it.

Minorities unheard
It goes without saying that a large proportion of those who cannot vote on November 8th belong to a minority group. Their limited representation may ultimately be felt in the election results.

“These groups all have one thing in common,” writes Mr Ginatta.

“Those who cannot vote in November, for one reason or another, are disproportionately Black or Latino. Whoever takes the reins of US government in November should work to end unreasonable restrictions on voting rights.”

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter 

Overpriced tuberculosis drug unavailable to countries needing it most: MSF

by David Kavanagh

A promising tuberculosis drug that has had approval for usage for over 2 years and could effectively treat over 300000 newly infected people has only been utilized in 180 cases, according to medical humanitarian organisation Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF).

In a statement released last week, the group criticised Japanese pharmaceutical company Otsuka for overpricing its experimental drug delamanid and not doing enough to ensure the most vulnerable have access.

Tuberculosis (TB) is one the world’s deadliest diseases, killing an estimated three people per minute and infecting approximately one third of the global population. It is also the leading killer of people diagnosed with HIV.

A TB patient in Daru Hospital, Papua New Guinea, where TB is nearly an epidemic. Source: Philippe Schneider/ World Vision

As one of only two TB drug treatments developed and made available in the past 50 years, the other being Johnson and Johnson’s bedaquiline, delamanid is said to be potent against some of the most lethal strains of the disease, including multidrug-resistant TB and extensively drug-resistant TB.

Otsuka currently provides the drug, which has to be taken alongside other costly medicines, to a handful of countries for US$1700 per treatment course.

TB advisor for MSF’s Access Campaign Dr Grania Brigden said most governments, especially those in the developing world, deem this pricing unaffordable.

Furthermore, Otsuka has to date registered the drug in only four countries, including Germany, Japan, South Korea, and the UK, all of which house a very low number of drug-resistant TB cases.

“Otsuka should prioritise expanding access for people whose lives could be saved by delamanid,” said Dr Bridgen

“The price for delamanid needs to come down to an affordable level, and Otsuka should also register delamanid quickly in all countries where the drug has been tested… [and] in countries with the highest burdens of drug-resistant TB.”

Surprised by MSF’s criticisms, Communications director for Otsuka’s global TB program Marc Destito said Otsuka needed MSF, which has been treating multidrug-resistant TB since 1999, to work alongside it in order to improve the situation.

“The price of delamanid was mutually agreed with the Global Drug Facility (GDF) and is the lowest price that we can offer to cover our high manufacturing costs,” he said.

A patient diagnosed with TB holds his x-ray picture. Kyrgyzstan. Source: Helmut Wachter/ 13photo

“We are trying to create a sustainable business model to try to entice more companies to get involved in the neglected disease area.

“We are actively working to register delamanid in high-burden countries including Russia, India, China and South Africa but there are many regulatory hurdles to overcome.

“Some countries are not part of GDF, others do not allow special importation of drugs and some lack the regulatory capacity to deal with the processes.”

Last week, Otsuka signed a deal with the Stop TB Partnership, an international body that aims to coordinate various actors in the fight against TB, and cited a desire to increase access to low and middle-income countries.

A public-private partnership between the two groups would include a variety of services designed to assist with the incorporation of delamanid into existing national healthcare programs.

Only countries following relevant WHO guidelines and eligible for financing by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria would be included in this.

MSF’s HIV and TB policy advisor Sharonann Lynch told the Pharma Letter the agreement would mean very little if the drug remained too expensive and inaccessible.

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter

Tax havens a major contributor to rising inequality: Oxfam

by David Kavanagh 

The use of tax havens by hundreds of multinational corporations worldwide is one of the main causes of rising global inequality, according to a recent 44-page report by international not-for-profit Oxfam.

Based on research by economist Gabriel Zucman, An Economy for the 1% reveals that corporate tax-dodging costs developing countries at least $100 billion annually.

In an opinion piece for Al Jazeera, Oxfam International’s executive director Winnie Byanyima called on the international community to step up its effort at curbing tax avoidance and bridging the extreme wealth gaps between the world’s rich and poor.

The Tondo slum sits just beyond high-rise buildings in Manila, Philippines. 2014. Source: Dewald Brand/ Oxfam

“Trickle-down economics is a fallacy… the rich can no longer pretend their wealth benefits the rest of us,” she wrote.

“Our governments – which are meant to represent our interests – need to shun the vested interests of the richest by stopping the race to the bottom on tax and pulling back the curtains on shady financial dealings.

“If inequality is not dealt with, we could see more social unrest across the world, a brake on growth and all the work that has been done in the last quarter-century on poverty halted – potentially reversed.”

Wealth gaps widening
Last year, the World Bank announced that global extreme poverty had fallen from 29% in 1999 to under 10% (or about 702 million people living below the line) in 2015.

But while poverty has generally decreased, the world’s wealth has risen drastically, and inequality is higher than it has ever been.

In 2010, 388 individuals possessed as much wealth as the world’s poorest 50% (or 3.6 billion people by today’s population).

Only five years later, that number substantially decreased to 62 individuals owning the same amount.

Furthermore, by Oxfam’s estimates, if the gap between rich and poor had not widened as drastically as it did between 1990 and 2010, an additional 200 million may have also escaped poverty, bringing the stats down more so.

What are tax havens? How do they contribute to global inequality?
Put simply, tax havens are financial institutions, shelters, shell companies or offshore accounts that corporations and individuals can use to store their funds in (at least on paper) without having to pay national taxes within other countries.

They exist in places such as the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg and are used by at least 350 multinational corporations (according to the 2014 Luxleaks), including business giants like Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Starbucks, and Walt Disney to name a few.

At present, approximately $7.6 trillion of individual’s wealth sits in tax haven accounts offshore, a sum that would generate about $190 billion if it were subject to taxation.

The United States government alone would be owed around $620 billion worth of federal taxes if its biggest 500 corporations were not keeping a further $2.1 trillion of wealth overseas.

A tall statue representing Uncle Sam stands outside a tax preparation office. Queens, NY. April 14, 2014. Source: Anthony Behar/Sipa USA

These numbers may increase even more – between 2000 and 2014, corporate investment in tax havens expanded.

While defenders of tax havens say they facilitate a smoother flow of capital around the globe, opponents argue that when corporations work around taxes and financial regulations put in place by governments, the less fortunate are generally affected the most.

According to Oxfam US policy director Gawain Kripke, this is because the large loss of funds that results from already wealthy corporations avoiding taxes deprives governments of revenue needed to provide basic services that could benefit the wider population.

“It’s starving key programs that help everybody, but especially poor people, get on their feet,” Mr Kripke said.

“This is true in both rich and poor countries, but you see it most acutely where poor countries have no health care system, where large numbers of students are either getting no education or a very poor quality education.

“That’s where it becomes a moral issue.”

Furthermore, since so many firms aren’t paying their fair share, ordinary people are required to shoulder the burden and pay increased taxes from their own wallets.

What is to be done?
Efforts to mitigate the severe consequences of tax avoidance have already started with the international community enshrining their opposition to inequality and poverty in the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals and G20 nations agreeing to some measures to make tax-dodging more difficult.

According to Mrs Byanyima, however, a lot more has to be done.

This week, Oxfam representatives will be attending the World Economic Forum in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland to pressure governments and firms to “play their part”, a seemingly important venture given that nine out of 10 WEF partners exist in at least one tax haven themselves.

“The second order challenge is how to create black lists and pressure on tax havens to at least be more transparent,” said Mr Kripke.

“If not to shut it down, to make it more difficult or impossible to use strategies that many wealthy people and corporations are using to avoid taxes.”

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter

Threat overblown: there’s too much talk of terrorism in the media

by David Kavanagh

More so than before the tragic events of September 11, 2001, media reporting around the world has become unnervingly inundated with stories concerning terrorism and the groups that perpetrate terrorist violence.

In fact, the amount of media coverage given to terrorist activities on a daily basis far outweighs that given to other arguably pressing issues such as climate change and extreme poverty.

In the US specifically, terrorism has taken over cable news, with CNN reportedly mentioning “terrorism” and “ISIS” a combined 831 times between November 21 and December 21 in 2015.

By comparison, in that same period, CNN discussed “climate change” 135 times, “poverty” a mere 34 times, and “CISA”, a contentious piece of anti-privacy legislation of import at the time not at all.

The danger posed by ISIS has been blown far out of proportion by the world media. Source: CNN

In an interview with NPR, US President Barack Obama accused notorious (and also over-reported on) billionaire businessman turned Republican candidate Donald Trump of exploiting blue-collar fears and concerns about Islamic State, and said that the media wasn’t helping either.

“If you’ve been watching television for the last month, all you have been seeing, all you have been hearing about is these guys with masks or black flags who are potentially coming to get you,” he said.

This is a continuing reality, not only in the US but around the globe, despite the fact that terrorism is not actually as much of a threat as the media leads the public to believe.

An ABC chart combining statistics from the Global Terrorism Database and the Gun Violence Archive shows that while terrorism has resulted in 3521 US deaths in the over forty-year period between 1970 and 2014 (including 9/11 – which accounts for 2996 of these), gun-related violence in America killed at least 9940 people in 2015 alone.

In a speech following a mass shooting in Oregon last October, President Obama said the attention given to terrorism over other issues is substantially skewed.

“We spend over $1 trillion and pass countless laws and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil — and rightfully so — and yet we have a Congress that explicitly blocks us from even collecting data on how we could potentially reduce gun deaths,” he said.

Visibly upset, President Obama makes a speech following a shooting that killed 13 at a community college in Oregon. October 2015. Source: Kevin Lamarque/ Reuters

“How can that be?”

Furthermore, most of the deaths that do occur as a result of terrorism around the world occur in non-OECD or third world countries, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Syria.

According to a 2015 report by the Institute for Economics and Peace, since 2000, less than 3% of terrorism-related deaths occurred in Western countries.

Even so, anti-Islamic sentiments – taking the form of threats and violence against Muslims all around the world – and fear about the possibility of Islamic State terror attacks in the West dominate public debate.

Globally, these fears have in turn led to the adoption of different pieces of legislation that although intended to protect the interests of National Security, are seen by some as threats to civil rights and freedoms.

We are forced to wonder whether it really is necessary for the mass media to report on terrorism as much as it does.

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter

Falcon 9 re-entry: what the successful landing means for the future of space travel

by David Kavanagh

Private spaceflight company SpaceX has made history today by coordinating the first ever successful and up-right landing of its powerful First Stage Falcon 9 rocket in Cape Canaveral, California.

The unmanned, 23-storey-tall rocket had been sent to deploy 11 satellites for telecommunications giant ORBCOMM on Tuesday as part of the first flight organised by SpaceX since one of its ISS-bound cargo rockets was destroyed minutes after launch in an accident in June.

Although Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezo’s Blue Origin, a primary competitor to SpaceX, achieved a similar feat during a landing test last month, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 is the first rocket to deliver a payload for a commercial orbital mission and safely return.

But why does it matter?
Falcon 9 rockets, like all big space exploration vehicles, are expensive to produce and have, up to now, always been rendered unusable upon re-entry, either because they crash into the sea or are burned up in the atmosphere.

The upgraded variant used during the ORBCOMM-2 mission instead landed smoothly on its specially designed deployable legs.

Business magnate and high-tech entrepreneur Elon Musk co-founded SpaceX in 2002 and endeavours to, among other space-based missions, eventually turn space tourism into reality.

Ultimately, having access to reusable rockets that make use of advanced systems of precise navigation, guidance, and thrust control should make the operational and time costs involved in these sorts of tasks far more affordable since the expensive machines would not have to be rebuilt for every launch.

SpaceX CEO and co-founder Elon Musk at the MIT AeroAstro Centennial Symposium in October. Source: Dominick Reuter

It also gives SpaceX a noticeable advantage over its rivals in the extremely competitive private space launch industry.

“Reusability is the critical breakthrough needed in rocketry to take things to the next level,” said Musk at the MIT AeroAstro Centennial Symposium in October.

While the construction of a stable armada of reusable rockets will take some years and great coordination, today’s Falcon 9 success demonstrates that it is possible.

As Wall Street Journal’s Andy Pasztor put it, this historic landing really does have the potential to “shake up [the] space industry.”

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter

Paris climate agreement: a three-point summary

by David Kavanagh

After around two weeks of intensive debate at the COP21 climate talks in Paris, the nearly 200 attendant countries reached consensus and published the final Paris Agreement on December 12.

The unparalleled accord succeeds where the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 failed, uniting the international community in a singular stance against the ever-encroaching threat of climate change and global warming.

“This agreement is differentiated, fair, durable, dynamic, balanced, and legally binding,” said French foreign minister and President of the COP21 talks Laurent Fabius.

While many leaders from around the world expressed a collective sense of cautious optimism about the key elements espoused in the resulting document (which you can read in full here), some experts and activists remain skeptical.

They stress that although the deal is a positive step forward, the real work starts now and a lot more has to be done for it to be effective in mitigating the effects of climate change.

For now, here’s a quick guide to the most important points raised in the agreement.

COP21 attendants applaud the adoption of the Paris Agreement after two weeks of intense negotiation. Source: AFP/ Francois Guillot

The 2°C limit:
By adopting the agreement, countries commit to keeping global temperatures at “well below” 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

Ultimately, the accord also highlights a more ambitious target of 1.5°C, which vulnerable low-lying island nations say is necessary if they are to survive the dangers of rising sea levels and climate-related disasters at all.

The aim is to achieve this by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases worldwide, with the agreement specifically calling for global emissions to “peak as soon as possible”.

However, experts worry that existing national targets around the world are not enough.

Based on current pledges, global temperatures could rise by about 2.7°C if more ambitious targets aren’t set.

National reviews every 5 years:
In order to ensure countries follow through with their commitment to decrease emissions, the Paris Agreement requires that every nation submit their self-determined emission reduction plans for review every 5 years, starting in 2020.

Each subsequent plan will need to be an improvement on the one before.

While some experts believes this is a great system for checking progress and encouraging ambitious commitment, there is no official requirement that parties must review or upgrade their pledges prior to 2030.

They may do so voluntarily, however.

Financial assistance to developing countries:
Rich and developed countries like the US will be required to provide “climate finance” or financial assistance to poorer countries in order to help them transition and develop using renewable energy.

At least US$100 billion will be contributed every year from 2020 onwards.

While the Paris Agreement doesn’t make any formal distinction between developed and developing nation states, it recognises that rich countries should effectively take the lead and poorer countries should aim to do what they can “over time”.

This is in large part due to the fact that developed and industrialised countries generally emit more greenhouse gases and can also better afford transitions to alternative energy sources than developing states.

As a side note, a significant point of contention during the COP21 debate was the issue of loss and damages, a concept that claims vulnerable countries should be compensated for their losses resulting from climate change by developed countries.

While mention of loss and damages and recognition of the greater vulnerability of developing states made its way into the final document, the requirement of compensation was excluded, reflecting fears put forth by the US that the provision could have been used to sue American companies.

For more, check out The Paris climate agreement at a glance by The Conversation.

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter

Road to COP21: the facts and figures of Climate Change

by David Kavanagh

In less than two weeks, representatives from over 190 countries and a host of intergovernmental organisations, UN agencies and NGOs will meet in Le Bourget in Paris, France to discuss the future of the global approach to climate change.

The 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) is intended to run from November 30 to December 11 and will, for the first time in 20 years, aim to “achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate [change], with the aim of keeping global warming below 2°C.”

This event will continue the tradition of annual COP meetings strengthening the goals of the widely accepted United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was introduced at the first Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and put into action two years later, and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

Both of these were designed to guide the stabilisation and reduction of international greenhouse gas emissions and general “dangerous human interference” with the climate system.

With expectations extremely high in the lead up to these talks, now is a good a time as ever to re-examine the issues, facts, and figures of climate change, all of which will need to be addressed for any meaningful progress to be made.

Last year’s COP20 talks in Lima paved the way for COP21. Source: euractiv.com

The world is heating up
According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the average global temperature could increase by between 3°C – 6°C by the end of the century if action isn’t taken soon.

In order to achieve the goal of limiting this rise to 2°C, net zero greenhouse gas emissions are required by 2100 and emissions need to peak by 2030 at the latest.

Unsurprisingly, last month was the hottest October ever recorded, and 2015 is right on track to being the hottest year as well.

Rising sea levels and increased likelihoods of weather-related disasters such as bush fires and droughts will have wide-ranging consequences in a litany of diverse areas including global health, poverty, and wildlife conservation.

Climate change hits the third world the hardest
The World Bank Group, an international financial institution that acts as the go-to development bank for many developing countries, stresses that climate change presents an unprecedented threat to the many advancements already made against global poverty, disease and hunger.

High temperatures, change in rain patterns, drought and other climate-related disasters pose massive risks for agriculture and food and water supplies around the world.

It has been predicted that by 2030, approximately 100 million people will have been pushed into poverty as a direct effect of the changing climate.

A boy walks through flooded streets in the Philippines. Source: newsecuritybeat.org

Global security threatened as well
These conditions will likely create what many describe as “climate refugees” or “environmental migrants” forced to move due to sudden or gradual changes in the natural environments where they live.

The predicted mass displacement and resultant migration of around 200 million people by 2050, many of which may hail from low-lying Pacific Island nations facing rising sea levels, doesn’t only affect the third world.

The question of who accepts these migrants, and what their intake will lead too internally, is a controversial one.

Unsurprisingly, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) once suggested in its First Assessment Report that the large-scale movement of people might become the “greatest single impact” on world security.

So far, we’re not doing enough
Between 1990 and 2010, the only continent in which greenhouse gas emissions were reduced was Europe. At a global level, emissions continue to rise.

While over 150 governments have submitted Intended National Determined Contributions (INDCs), the main way through which they present their intended course of action to the international community, to the UNFCCC, the current figures would not be enough to prevent world temperatures from exceeding 2°C.

Furthermore, since INDCs are not in any way legally binding, and because governments have to balance national priorities against the collective global agenda, many governments seem to be falling short of their commitments.

If change is to be made, the 50,000 participants, of which 25,000 are government representatives and officials, will have to work together at COP21 to find ways to step up their game and stringently abide by bolder emission reduction targets.

Most increased global emissions will come from a handful of nations
OECD countries such as Australia, the US, and the UK are expected to continue to emit the highest amount of emissions per capita, with the former at the forefront.

However, the BRIICS (Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, China, and South Africa) will likely be the reason world emissions increase over the next 30 years.

This is because, while economic growth and expansion slows down in the developed West, the populations and GDP per capita of these countries are rapidly rising.

Industrial expansion and economic development is a key cause of increased carbon emissions.

Energy is killing us – we need to focus on renewables
Energy attained from coal and natural gas accounts for over 60% of global greenhouse gas emissions, with that figure predicted to increase to 78% by 2050 from 2005 levels if nothing is done about it.

At the same time, an expected increase in the demand for cars around the world and in developing nations particularly will likely lead to the emissions from transport doubling to 40% by 2035.

Low-carbon or renewable energy sources can help economies grow while at the same time mitigating the effects of climate change.

Solar and wind are important sources of renewable energy. Source: wired.co.uk

Encouragingly, according to the World Wide Fund for Nature, renewable energy is on the way to becoming the “third largest industrial sector” in the world and, since 1990, clean energy has grown at an annual average of 2.2%.

That said, renewables represent only 13.5% of international energy supplies, with fossil fuels at 81%.

Global cooperation, at both state and civil levels, is key
Climate change and global warming is, to everyone in the world, an existential danger.

Importantly, given its borderless nature, climate change is not an issue that any one country can handle successfully on its own.

Compromise and cooperation from all actors in the international community is incredibly necessary and COP21 will hopefully play a key part in ensuring more is done.

In many ways, it is also up to members of civil society to demonstrate and show their public representatives that this is an issue worth fighting for.

---

For more of this kind of content, follow Journalytic on Facebook or Twitter